tv [untitled] April 18, 2013 4:44pm-5:14pm PDT
support one form or small form of retail. i'm going to put an emphasis on small moving into an already coffee place type space. that's what i feel we are judging on. >> on that motion, commissioner antonini, aye, hillis, aye, wu aye, so moved commissioners that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and puts you on item 11 for 1501 baker street request for conditional use authorization. >> members of the planning commission sharon young. the item before you is kwr for use of authorization to react rate
to establish 1850 square foot establishment doing business within rh 3 zoning district. they were occupied both commercial tenant spaces at 2600 sutter street with connection between the two spaces. the proposal involves commercial space. there would be no expansion of existing building envelope. according to the project sponsor, the propose service establishment will specialize in nutrition and holistic workshops, presentations and possibly drop off point for fruit and vegetables and delivery services. the proposed will be independently own and not considered a retail use in the
planning code. the subject commercial at the present time space was prior to january 1st, 1960 was a grocery store and according to the project sponsor, the commercial spaces might have been used for personal uses for some time after 1998. to date the permanent has received two e-mails in support in concern about potential noise and request the walls be sound insulated and also after the project was noticed, there was phone calls, e-mails and contacts from supervisor ferls office for information about the project because of rumors that a medical cannabis dispensary was being proposed this concludes my presentation
and the planning department is recommending approval with conditions. thank you. >> project sponsor please. >> i'm here to tell you a little bit of background. i'm a lifestyle coach. i help people with all kinds of health issues. i help people with rehabilitation so people coming out of physical therapy. it sort of like a personal training studio. but it's not like a 24 hour fitness. the concerns about noise, i don't know if you probably have in the packet, the blueprints you will see the work out room is on the corner of the space and further away from the walls that adjoin any of the other properties. i'm open to addressed sound concerns if people have them down the road and just so you know i did have
a meeting with neighbors. maybe 8 or 10 folks showed up and they were in support and i think there should be a couple of males -- e-mails and notes in your packets. open to questions. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> david engan. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, public comment is close. commissioner antonini. project sponsor. the rumor about the mcd is just a rumor. >> it's a rumor. the public notices that were regarding this hearing were defaced and they wrote no dispensary, speak
out. subsequently someone scratched out the no and wrote yes. >> if you were here at the last dispensary you understand how important that is. >> i have driven by this location a couple times. it intrigues me because it's a great location. there are some interesting things across from it. i think this is a kul -- cool use and i wish you lung -- luck on it. >> i would move to approve. >> on that motion to approve. >> commissioner antonini, aye, hillis aye, sugaya aye, wu,
aye, that motion passes unanimously 7-0. places you on item 12. request for conditional use authorization. >> good afternoon i'm chris crawford with department staff. this case is a conditional use request under planning code section 21-44 for a restaurant doing business as pic a kitchen in the neighborhood commercial district. the project would convert the existing limiting restaurant to a full restaurant with beer and wine service. it would be open from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.. the types of alcohol are limited by an earlier planning motion by improvement of the nightclub on
this building. i'm pleased to report has been operating continually since the planning commission approved the expansion of that without any difficulty with the neighborhood. this project is an independently owned business and not a form of retail. including this proposed restaurant, the total number of drinking and eating establishments, within this location is only 15 percent of the lineal frontage much less than the commission imposed. the proposed restaurant would not cause any concentration of food and beverage uses. the department has received letters of support from the process by the castro and merchants in upper market castro. we have had no opposition to the project. the project recommends
approval of proposal with conditions. it will not cause concentration of drinking and eating establishment and complies with all requirements of the planning code and for most the policies of the general plan. thank you very much, i'm available for questions. >> thank you. project sponsor? >> hello. i'm the owner. we have applied for a license to provide alcohol in 2011, august, it was approved. it was not until we went to the health department that we realized that the restaurant has been zoned for limited restaurant. this is part of a legislation that passed late last year to simplify restaurant, by not being open we went to our elimination of restaurant. we would like to be considered to
be a restaurant since our cuisine is a restaurant an accompanied by beer and wine. >> all right. we'll open to public comment. we might have questions for you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. public comment is closed. >> i live by the other location. i vote to prove this motion. >> on that motion to approve, commissioner wu, ayes. so move that motion passes. that places you in the next item at 3819 forth street for
discretionary review. >> good afternoon commissioners. property address. this proposal is to construct a rear existing to a 3 story family residence. the project's located on a 25 hundred foot parcel. the existing structure is 7 inches from the property line. the block is predominantly made up of 3 story dwellings with similar front set backs. the other adjacent lots are 114 feet deep which are deeper to the property. while the the
other residence are toward the other street. three additional properties front on the noi street. these three parcels are 80 feet. this past week one of the dr's has been withdrawn. the process on the file to the west have agreed to a design modification that was agreed upon after the design changes in the commission packages. this changes result in an area that doesn't require additional notification. they found the
project meets the standards and the project does not present an exceptional extraordinary circumstances. the upper level of the proposed position only 8 feet beyond the existing wall and it's height would be lower than the existing ridge line of the house. the rearmost portion would only be one story in height. the main rear wall showers in the adjacent rear wall of the property to the west. the addition will not affect open space. the building to the east are separated from the addition by the rear yard and will not change the relationship nor will it alter the existing situation.
therefore the department is determined that this addition will not create a significant adverse on the residents. the planning department should know take discretionary view. one thing i would like to note there is an agreed upon modification with one of the dr fileers. the plans do not reflect that. the architect can explain that in detail during their presentation. this is an actual reduction in building mass. so it wouldn't require any additional negotiation. if the commission shows they could take dr based on that modification or prove it then they would provide the revisions.
>> thank you. >> that dr has been withdrawn? >> yes. it there is only one dr against the property. >> okay. you have five minutes. my name is barbara. i live necked -- next door to the proposed project. i object to the building. it will shield my windows from the western sunlight and warmth. my house has always depended on its solar attributes which is limited to 3 hours on sunny days. i want the extension
denied. the roof slopes. such an extension includes the set backs. this represents the aerial view of my house at the top center. period 90 degrees. this is my house. the project house to the left and the noi street development on the right. this is my yard here. my house is swayed -- situated on a substandard lot. this yard ends much higher. there is no basement and no room to install central heating. this is an adjustment to the overhead. this is my idea of what the tunnel created by the new construction would look like.
so this is the extension here and this again is my house which is now shadowed. the southern windows are shadowed by the east wall of houses and by the west wall extension of the project. the tunnel is filled with the noi street back yards by the land owners. i have no say over the height on planting or these growth. here is the picture of the kitchen showing the light that has been available and would be affected by the proposed section. this is kitchen window. most of my daylight hours is spent in this room. this is where i read, write, cook and hostess. this is the colored view. it how i imagine proposed extension will darken the area and affect the temperature, a space which
feels boxed in. this bedroom window, the view when it's sunny this is an cheerful and welcoming room. this looks told colder and darker to me. at the neck level there is a skylight area. it is a very cheerful place for my sewing and craft projects. this belongs here. it has original charm and can be just as viable
in the 21 century. this appears to be the thrust of the residential guidelines anyway. thank you. so, here it says setback upper floors to provide rear yard set backs or provide set backs from the side property lines. reduce the foot print of the peripheral building or additions. these are the kind of modifications that are going to be made and make my living space as enjoyable as it has in the past. thank you. >> thank you, speakers in favor
of the dr. any speakers in favor of the dr? >> hi. i'm a resident. i have a letter here of the dolores heights improvement club. i'm here in support of barbara barnard. this addition is enormous. my name is como. i can't believe it went that far actually. i can't believe the planning commission has approved it to go that far. it goes so far back that it blocks three houses on noi street. the height is a misstatement to say the height would be lower because the total height would be much higher and further back
towards noi street. i'm here to support barbara. her house is small. she would suffer so much from this project. i just don't know how she could live inside this house in the dark. >> thank you. any other speakers in favor of the dr? >> bob dole. i live on noi street. the back of the property hits our backyard so we are affected and i would say to barbara minimally. we lose open space and if i were to take this sentence out of the letter that we have just provided to you put in an large box where it's not very creative design wise. that
affects our privacy and not consistent with what else is in the neighborhood. as my wife mentioned, it maybe legal but strikes me as unethical that these things are happening in this town and minimum it's rude that a wall can go up 30 feet and create this in people's back yards. i think it's in incredibly unfair to barbara at this point and decent compromise. >> anyone else in favor of the dr? >> good afternoon, judith in support of the dr. the project sponsor proposes an addition that would create a 30 footwall along the east property line and put miss barnard at the end of a virtual tunnel and box in
the properties and 806 and 814 noi. this is not such a great photograph, but you have a better version of it in your packet. this is miss bernard's house. this is house next to it which is going to be extended out this way creating a wall. that wall will also, it's a building wall. it's the wall of the building would create, which already suffer visual aspect to the mid block open space and 806 and 814 annoy. we are very concerned about that as the neighborhood association. we ask for reducing the process and length addition would provide significant relief. nochg it at
the level. lowering of the roof is another. we ask that you consider those options and provide a 3-4 foot setback. this would leave an interior with of no less than 18 feet, a generous side indeed. please reduce the length of the project and lower the roof and notch the upper levels and provide a 3 into setback at every level of height addition. her light and sunshine and warmth are from the sunlight exposure. and by shadows from the noi street house and notch much warm from the north either. she depend on the sunshine that comes in from the
south. the shadows produced by the sponsor, do not convey on how much this will affect her life. they are not credible. the mid block open space for both miss bernard at 806 noi is serve and significant. i refer you to the residential guidelines included in my letter to you. i hope you will not underestimate the impact of this project on the neighbors and will endeavor to mitigate it. thank you very much for any considerations. i could tell you what parts of the residential design guidelines apply to this property if you give me a minute more. you had
3 minutes. >> okay. you might see in the sight design section, page 21 provide set backs at the rear of the building in order to minimize impacts of light. page 27, building scale on form. you can see the effect of an extension that extends out and the impact it would have. let see, those are the primary ones. those are enough. to give you some ideas. page 25-26 as well. thank you very much. >> any other speakers in favor of the dr request? okay. project sponsor you have five minutes.
>> good afternoon, my name is michael levine, i have the architect. project sponsor. and maria is here today and she will add her remarks. by removing the rear portion of the existing roof area above the third floor replaced it with an extended flat roofed area which effectively is 5 feet below the current ridge line of the existing building. if i can get the overhead, please. the site currently
exist an existing 3 story building. the rear wall is shorter to the neighboring building to the west and over 30 feet shorter of the average of the rear walls of building along 21st street. the dr request building to the east in the rear lot line of the corner lot fronting on noi street. as a result the building enjoys three open exposures, southern, eastern, northern. including exposure to a 55 foot deep front yard area. the southerly exposure of which the dr request or is on the property line in which it would not be allowed by current code. though
some loss of light to the windows is recognized is acceptable by the design guidelines we feel the loss of light is claimed by the request or is unsubstantd. there is unsupported examples of how dark these rooms will become. the following solar analysis i will show with before and after effects of the addition you will see any loss of light is minimal throughout the year. the first drawing here shows both existing and proposed conditions at 3 times of the day, 1, 3 and 5 p.m. at the winter solstice. i don't know how well this is showing up.
the existing building has a slight shadow against it from the existing building, rather with the proposed project in place there is a slightly larger shadow against two of the windows on the facade. at 3 p.m. in the afternoon you can see two of the windows receiving light. others are blocked by shadow of the existing building. similarly there are two windows received some, this upper windows receiving less. at 5 p.m., something interesting happens because of the flat roofed that we are proposing, the building is receiving some additional sun. that window that room she likes to spend room she will receive additional sunlight. moving